The Dual Containment metaphor: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and linking the Cold War to the War on Terror 

article resource:
2025 Apr Political Communication Public Address Rhetoric

New Series, Vol. 2, No. 8

Metaphors, which this article defines (from Richard Gregg) as “a thoroughly rhetorical cognitive process” that “encourage us to adopt some particular perspective” and “culminates in a point of view,” have been used historically in politics, literature, religion, and beyond. This article concerns the metaphor, “Dual Containment,” which was President Bill Clinton’s shorthand for his defense policy in the Persian Gulf intended to limit actions by Iraq and Iran that the United States opposed. Specifically, the president wanted to maximize security of Middle East countries that were U.S. allies, protect the westward flow of oil, and continue Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. 

Author Fowler argues that it is important to study the power of metaphors because they “operate systematically” as they are repeatedly used, and they “provide warrants for policy” as they shape thinking in some ways and not others.  

Americans had been using the metaphor “Cold War” for decades, but with the collapse of communism almost everywhere except China, Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam by Clinton’s presidency (starting in 1993), that metaphor and relevant others became obsolete. Thus, Clinton and his foreign policy team started using “dual containment” and “democratic enlargement,” the latter about encouraging more capitalist democracies. 

Fowler’s essay details the history of the use of “Dual Containment,” first used by U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk on May 18, 1993. Indyk claimed that the Middle East had two possible futures, “peaceful coexistence, regional economic development, arms control agreements, and growing democratization” or “extremists, cloaked in religious [Iranian] or nationalist [Iraqi] garb.” Indyk lumped together Iraq and Iran even though they were enemies and the USA’s concerns about them were not the same. In fact, “Dual Containment” stopped being used in 1994 precisely because it “muddied the distinctions” between U.S. policies on Iraq and Iran. 

Fowler argues that George W. Bush’s metaphor, “War on Terror” and related language, was in some ways similar to Cold War rhetoric and in other ways similar to Clinton’s language, even though many experts have claimed Bush’s approach was new.  

Specifically, the Clinton administration’s speeches “affirmed an expansive U.S. role in the Gulf,” “cast a preventative, negative vision of perpetual containment” as key, and fixated on “terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ as characteristics of U.S. enemies in the Gulf.” Bush built his own rhetoric on top of Clinton’s about terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and “radical Islamists,” particularly after Al Qaeda attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001 eight months into Bush’s term. Bush said he wanted to “accelerate worldwide democratization” and not just encourage or facilitate it, as Clinton hoped to. (The U.S. invaded Iraq in March 2003, U.S. leaders predicting the war would be short and inexpensive, rather than the nearly nine-year slog it became, at a total cost of 4,432 U.S. personnel killed, almost 32,000 U.S. personnel wounded, and about $4 trillion in direct and indirect, short-term and long-term costs to the U.S. In addition, Bush and Congressional Republicans decided for the first time in U.S. history not to raise taxes to pay for an expensive war. On the other hand, in 2005, Iraq finally got an arguably democratic government that has continued since then.) 


Communication Currents Discussion Questions 

  1. Think of one or more metaphors and for each one, consider the metaphor’s cost-benefit analysis: a metaphor saves effort in repeatedly naming, describing, and even thinking about a topic (such as “Cold War” or “War on Poverty”), and at the same time, forecloses alternative ways of naming, describing and thinking about the subject. 
  2. Dual Containment” was a metaphor that politicians stopped using and that never seemed widely used among the general public. Discuss possible reasons why some metaphors persist, even sometimes when not based in fact (such as conservatives’ claimed fear of Obamacare “death panels”) and why others do not, even when factual (such as “Dual Containment”).
  3. The article suggests that continuity between Bill Clinton’s rhetoric and George W. Bush’s rhetoric is a surprising finding. But is it? Both presidents faced the same hostile countries (Iraq and Iran) only a few years apart, and Fowler (and others) argue that both presidents wanted to encourage capitalist democracies, Clinton slowly and peacefully and Bush more quickly and militarily. Can you think of others reasons their rhetoric might be similar?

For additional suggestions about how to use this and other Communication Currents in the classroom, see: https://www.natcom.org/publications/communication-currents/integrating-communication-currents-classroom 


ABOUT THE AUTHORS  

Randall Fowler is Assistant Professor of Communication at Abilene Christian University. 

This essay, by Dane S. Claussen, translates the scholarly journal article, R. Fowler (2025). The Dual Containment metaphor: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and linking the Cold War to the War on Terror, Quarterly Journal of Speech 111(1), 110–133. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2024.2333902 

The full copyright and private policy link is available at natcom.org/privacy-policy/